Presentation on theme: "Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa Elisabeth King Cyrus Samii Columbia University."— Presentation transcript:
Social Cohesion Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa Elisabeth King Cyrus Samii Columbia University
Synthetic Review Systematic review on existing studies on a topic Find out what works? Goal of informing policy
Motivation Studies suggest that social cohesion is important for development outcomes and for post-conflict peacebuilding. For these results to be meaningful for policy we need to know… Is social cohesion manipulable? Can you grow it?
Focus Development, reconstruction, and peacebuilding interventions in sub-Saharan Africa aiming to generate social cohesion. Interventions have beginning and end Intervention types include: community-driven development, social funds and education or media programs.
What is social cohesion? “affective bonds between citizens” (Chipkin and Ngqulunga 2008), “local patterns of cooperation” (Fearon et al 2009) and “the glue that bonds society together, promoting harmony, a sense of community, and a degree of commitment to promoting the common good” (Colletta et al 2001). Social cohesion (rather than “social capital”) to emphasize that we are talking about attributes of groups
Social cohesion: inter-personal Inter-personal: relations between different groupings of individuals Behavioural measures of collective action, group membership & participation Attitudinal measures of participants’ feelings of trust, harmony and solidarity with other community members.
Social cohesion: inter-group Inter-group: relations across group lines Behaviourally, the more socially cohesive the society, the less sub-group identities are likely to delimit networks of regular cooperation and exchange. Attitudes of group members express feelings of trust, harmony and solidarity with members of other groups.
Questions What scientific evidence exists on the effectiveness of social cohesion interventions in Africa? 1. Minimum standards for inclusion 2. Types of interventions, measures & evaluation of effectiveness 3. Moving forward
Pre-Post Compari son Pre-Post2345 Post only1 None Not random or conditi oned Conditi oned, but not random Rando mized Comparison Criteria for Inclusion Borrowed from Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS)
Pre-Post Compari son Pre-Post2345 Post with pre controls or retrospective at post 34 Post only1 None Not random or conditi oned Conditi oned, but not random Rando mized Comparison Modified Criteria for Inclusion
Pre-Post Compari son Pre-Post23 Staub et al.; Pronyk et al. Post with pre controls or retrospective at post Chase & Sherbur ne- Benz; Kumar; Vajja & White Fearon et al.; Levy- Paluck ; Gugert y & Kreme r Post only1 None Not random or conditi oned Conditi oned, but not random Rando mized Comparison Studies to Include
8 Included interventions CDDCurriculum Inter-groupVajja & WhiteLevy-Paluck; Staub Inter-personalChase & Sherburne- Benz; Fearon et al; Gugerty & Kremer; Kumar; Vajja & White Levy-Paluck; Pronyk; Gugerty & Kremer Interventions in: Benin, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa & Zambia
Effectiveness “Effective” means that the intervention had a positive effect on social cohesion √: effective. There is sufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis (that is ineffective) X: ineffective or insufficient evidence. We can’t reject the null hypothesis (that is ineffective)
Effectiveness: inter-personal measuresCDDCurriculum Inter-personalAttitudesChase & SB X Kumar √ Vajja & White X Pronyk et al. √ Behaviour (self- reported) Chase & SB X Kumar X Vajja & White X Pronyk et al. √ Behaviour (activity organized by intervention) Fearon et al. √Levy-Paluck √ Behaviour (routine activity ) Gugerty & Kremer X
Moving forward Heterogeneity in findings None of cells are full – evidence thin Esp. inter-group Inconsistency in outcome measures
Moving forward If had to make summary judgment, CDD are potentially ineffective Moving forward, want more on mechanisms, mediators. CDD too much on incentives & not enough on process/capacity-building?
Moving forward If had to make summary judgment on curriculum, potentially effective. Moving forward, what is it about curriculum that works? Mechanisms & mediators? Specific messages? Context in which message delivered? Manner in which message delivered?
Moving forward Useful exercise What we know & what we don’t know – help set a research agenda
Shukran Elisabeth King firstname.lastname@example.org Cyrus Samii email@example.com *Pls send us your relevant studies to include*
Types of Measures AttitudesBehaviour Self- reported (through questions about behaviour) Observed – activity organized by interventio n Observed – routine activity Chase & Sherburne -Benz; Kumar; Levy- Paluck; Pronyk et al.; Staub et al.; Vajja & White Chase & Sherburne -Benz; Kumar; Vajja & White Fearon et al.; Levy- Paluck Gugerty & Kremer;
Type of Intervention Community participation project (CBD, CDD, social fund, etc.) Most involve setting spending priorities Chase & Sherburne-Benz Fearon et al. Gugerty & Kremer (PTA intervention) Kumar Vajja & White Group training or message/curriculum delivery Gugerty & Kremer (women’s group) Levy-Paluck Staub et al. Pronyk MicrofinancePronyk
Types of outcomes Inter-personalBothInter-group Chase & Sherburne-Benz; Fearon et al.; Gugerty & Kremer; Kumar; Pronyk et al. Levy-Paluck; Vajja & White Staub et al.